Shared memory design, was garbage collection

andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Tue, 11 Aug 1992 13:33:26 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Garbage Collection and Interactive Languages eifrig@beanworld.cs.jhu.edu (1992-08-04)
Re: Garbage Collection eifrig@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (1992-08-09)
Shared memory design, was garbage collection andrew@rentec.com (1992-08-11)
Re: Shared memory design, was garbage collection brannon@stun4s.cs.caltech.edu (1992-08-12)
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 13:33:26 GMT
References: 92-08-015 92-08-037
Keywords: storage, translator, design



eifrig@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Jonathan Eifrig) writes:


>(2) The UNIX process model is a good one, and should be preserved. In
>particular, this means that (a) processes shouldn't be able to crash each
>other or (b) view each other's data.


No. There are a lot of ways processes can view "each other's" data. One of
them, which is to map a common file, is very useful. I insist that
processes _should_ be able to do this, mainly by not buying versions of
UNIX where this is not possible.


Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.